grappling question

[Syndrome]

does anyone know if its legal to use fighting defensively as part of the grapple action?

[Trenloe]

The combat rules for grappling state:

Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.

The key thing here is that it is while attacking and the penalty is on attacks.

In the description of combat maneuvers:

Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.

The PRD for grappling doesn't state that it is an attack:

As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options.
As grappling is specifically a standard action, (not as part of an attack action or in place of an attack) you can't fight defensively as that is also a standard action - you can only have one standard action in a round.

Whereas other combat maneuvers do specifically say that they are attacks, or in place of an attack. For example:

You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack.

[Syndrome]

alright thanks that was my thoughts on it too but i couldnt find any definite rulings on it

[cmdisc]

I'm not sure I agree 100% with that, but I could be wrong.

#1 Fighting Defensively doesn't say anywhere in its description about only working when performing an Attack Action. "You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next turn." This is only talking about taking a penalty to attack rolls.

#2 A Grapple check is an attack. It is defined as a Standard Action, but it requires an attack roll. If your target has Sanctuary in effect, you must save against it before you can grapple him. If you are invisible, your invisibility breaks when you attempt to grapple him. And if you are under the effects of Bane, you suffer a -1 to your roll. All these and more indicate that a Grapple is an attack.

#3 "Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action" is not spelling out it's own Standard Action. If it was, then you couldn't make an Attack Action in the same round as that is a Standard Action also, and you can't have 2 Standards in the same round. IMHO, it appears that "Fighting Defensively" is more a template that overlays the attack roll you make, forcing a -4 penalty while offering a +2 bonus. I think adding "...as a Standard Action" and "...as a Full-round Action" only leads to confusion in the text.

This would suggest that you can take the -4 on your Grapple attack roll to gain the +2 AC bonus. Now maybe the Devs have stated otherwise somewhere. I'm unfamiliar with a response like that if it exists. I'm just going off gut reaction to the printed rules.

<shrug>

[Malkavian_Andi]

#1 Fighting Defensively doesn't say anywhere in its description about only working when performing an Attack Action. "You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next turn." This is only talking about taking a penalty to attack rolls.It does say that. You even quotet it: "You can choose to fight defensively when attacking."


#2 A Grapple check is an attack. It is defined as a Standard Action, but it requires an attack roll. If your target has Sanctuary in effect, you must save against it before you can grapple him. If you are invisible, your invisibility breaks when you attempt to grapple him. And if you are under the effects of Bane, you suffer a -1 to your roll. All these and more indicate that a Grapple is an attack.It is not an attack and it doesn't require an attack roll, but a CMB check. It is still an aggressive action, which is why it triggers Sanctuary and breaks Invisibility, but it is not an attack.


#3 "Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action" is not spelling out it's own Standard Action. If it was, then you couldn't make an Attack Action in the same round as that is a Standard Action also, and you can't have 2 Standards in the same round. IMHO, it appears that "Fighting Defensively" is more a template that overlays the attack roll you make, forcing a -4 penalty while offering a +2 bonus. I think adding "...as a Standard Action" and "...as a Full-round Action" only leads to confusion in the text."Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action" is not a standard action on its own, that's why it's listed under "Attack". It's a modifier to an attack, but it has to be an attack, not any standard action that requires the player to roll vs the opponent's defensive value. You have to use the Attack action to apply "fighting defensively as a standard action", then you can instead use any combat maneuvers that are performed instead of an attack, which then get the same modifiers as the attack would have gotten. But Grapple is not performed instead of an attack, it's a seperate standard action.

[cmdisc]

Your first point is incorrect. It doesn't say anything about making an "Attack Action". It only says "when attacking". There is a subtle yet distinct difference between the two. An "Attack Action" can be made as an AoO, a Standard Action, or a Full-Attack Action. "Attacking" can be any number of things. Performing a CM, making a Touch Attack with a Touch spell, etc. They are similar, yet different.

A grapple check is an attack requiring an attack roll. The PRD even says so:

"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."

We also know a Grapple check is an attack because it breaks your Invisibility if you perform it, you must check against Concealment and save against Sanctuary if your target has them, and you suffer any penalties that your attacks suffer.

But again, may be I'm just off somewhere. :P

[Malkavian_Andi]

Again, it's details. A CMB check is an attack roll, as the CRB says. This causes it to gain bonuses and penalties your standard attacks would get, be subject to concealment, and use the rule of natural 1 and natural 20.
But while the CMB check is an attack roll, the grapple maneuver is not an Attack action, and therefore the "fight defensively as a standard action" option (which is listed as an option for the Attack action) cannot be added to it.

[cmdisc]

I guess I still don't see where Fighting Defensively is talking about the "Attack Action". That term isn't used anywhere in the definition. It only mentions when "making attacks". And making an action that counts as an attack would seem to apply to this.

The placement of FD is in the Attack section, yes. But that section is defining different types of attacks. Melee, Ranged, Multiple, etc are their own sub-sections. So is Fighting Defensively. FD is not placed as a sub-section to melee and ranged attacks, but its own category. Meaning maybe it can be applied to more options. :)

[Malkavian_Andi]

Yes, it's in the Attack section, combat maneuvers are not, they're in the combat maneuver section.


FD is not placed as a sub-section to melee and ranged attacks, but its own category.And in that category, it mentions "while attacking", so it says it's an additional option to the other categories listed in the attack section.


Meaning maybe it can be applied to more options.There's no maybe in Pathfinder. If there is no rule explicitly saying it can be used during standard actions other than the Attack action, then it can't. As the rules are written, fighting defensively is only possible when performing the actions Attack (a standard action) or Full Attack (a full-round action), because those are the only places that option is listed.

[avro5731]

Thoughts on Greater Grapple and FD?

Greater Grapple (Combat)
Maintaining a grapple is second nature to you.

Prerequisites: Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +6, Dex 13.

Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to grapple a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Grapple. Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action. This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks. You only need to succeed at one of these checks to maintain the grapple.

Normal: Maintaining a grapple is a standard action.

[cmdisc]

Interesting. I'll toss the question up on the Paizo site and see what others think. Curious if there is consensus on this or not as I haven't seen any discussions regarding it other than this one.

[Syndrome]

yea thats why i posted it on here... wasnt any official answer so thought id see what the consensus was

[cmdisc]

The responses I'm getting back so far on the Paizo Rules Forum is a consensus that you can Fight Defensively while using Combat Maneuvers, including Grapple, since they are attacks and FD applies when making attacks.

Now this is in regard to PF in general. I don't know if Society runs things differently. I could always ask there as well to see if the answer differs.

[Trenloe]

Now this is in regard to PF in general. I don't know if Society runs things differently. I could always ask there as well to see if the answer differs.
Ultimately I think this is a grey area and unless there is an official post by Paizo there will always be the possibility that a GM will not allow you to fight defensively and grapple - based on my post above I would disallow it. So keep that in mind if you are designing a character around this.

[cmdisc]

Hmm. Different but related:

Does this mean you wouldn't allow Fighting Defensively when Cleaving, Charging, or Touch Attacking? Like Grapple, these are all special attacks that exist outside the normal iterative progression.

[Trenloe]

Does this mean you wouldn't allow Fighting Defensively when Cleaving, Charging, or Touch Attacking? Like Grapple, these are all special attacks that exist outside the normal iterative progression.
Charging: no, as this is a full action so you can't fight defensively as a standard action.

Touch attacking: yes, as this is listed in the "“Armed” Unarmed Attacks" section of the combat chapter.

Cleave: yes, as the feat description says it is an attack: "As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach"

As stated in my post above, the reason why I would not allow fighting defensively while grappling is that grapple is not specifically called an attack action, whereas some other combat maneuvers are: "As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options."

Whereas, for example, Disarm says that it is in place of a melee attack: "You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack."

"Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. "

Bull Rush, Disarm, Sunder and Trip specifically say "in place of a melee attack" and so I would allow fighting defensively to be valid with those combat maneuvers.

I wouldn't allow overrun as this is not listed as "in place of a melee attack".

To support the above further: Bull Rush, Disarm, Sunder and Trip all mention "If your attack is successful.."

Whereas Grapple does not mention "attack", it simply says "If successful..." and Overrun says "If your maneuver is successful...".

For me, I will allow fighting defensively as part of a standard action that is specifically detailed as an attack action. I will also allow it as part of a "full attack" action as it is specifically allowed for that: "Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for until the start your next turn." I will not allow fighting defensively as part of other standard actions that are not indicated to be an attack action.

[cmdisc]

I agree that it sounds like a grey area. So watch for table variations ahead. Although I'm of the opinion that allowing for it doesn't overpower anything, so no foul there. :)

[Syndrome]

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus.

see this is the part that gets me... it says cmb is an attack roll and if you get minuses to attack it applies to cmb as well

[Syndrome]

that actually brings up another question... if you cant grapple and fight defensively... do you take the -4 penalty to attack on the grapples?

[Trenloe]

that actually brings up another question... if you cant grapple and fight defensively... do you take the -4 penalty to attack on the grapples?
Not sure what you're asking here... If you can't grapple and fight defensively then there wouldn't be a -4 on your grapple checks as you wouldn't be fighting defensively *and* grappling in the same round.

Interestingly, the "Grappled" condition specifically mentions combat maneuvers in addition to attack rolls, again suggesting that not all combat maneuvers are attack rolls:

"A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks"

[Syndrome]

well with snapping turtle clutch you can grapple as an immediate action to a target missing you... so as the first round i do a regular attack fighting defensively and on the enemies turn they swing and miss and now i grapple them... minuses do not apply then im assuming by the grappled condition listening cmb and attack rolls seperately

[Trenloe]

well with snapping turtle clutch you can grapple as an immediate action to a target missing you... so as the first round i do a regular attack fighting defensively and on the enemies turn they swing and miss and now i grapple them... minuses do not apply then im assuming by the grappled condition listening cmb and attack rolls seperately
Based on the discussion so far in this thread, and my stance on grapple not being a normal attack action, minuses from fighting defensively will not apply to grapple checks (or other Combat Maneuvers that are not listed as "in place of a melee attack").

Of course, once you have grappled someone you won't be able to "fight defensively as a standard action" on your next turn unless you choose to release the grapple, or have a way of maintaining a grapple as an action other than a standard.

Then don't get me started on how some monk builds are completely broken as far as grappling is concerned...

[Syndrome]

alright thanks for the feedback... and yea maybe a little broken lol

[cmdisc]

We can agree that FD applying (or not) to Grapple is a grey area, but we'll want to be careful saying Grapple isn't an attack.

I don't believe Syndrome can drink a potion of Invisibility, target an enemy cleric that has Sanctuary up, and Grapple him without breaking his invis or having to check against the spell effect first. As only attacks and spells that target foes apply to these, I am stuck assuming Grapple falls under the attack condition (since it's not a spell).

Plus since RAW sees Grapple as a weapon, it is probably safe to assume it is an attack of some type because attacking is what we do with weapons.

Also, as per the PRD, "Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll." So if you have FD running from some other attack, I would think the penalty would still apply when Grappling via STC.

[Malkavian_Andi]

since RAW sees Grapple as a weaponWhere exactly does it say that?


So if you have FD running from some other attack, I would think the penalty would still apply when Grappling via STC.On that, I agree. If you perform an Attack action and are able to perform a grapple attempt during the same round (for example, if you possess the Grab special ability), the penalty should apply to that roll as well.

[cmdisc]

Where exactly does it say that?

You must choose a weapon for feats like:

Weapon Focus
Greater Weapon Focus
Weapon Specialization
Greater Weapon Specialization
Improved Critical
Dazzling Display
Deadly Stroke

You can choose Grapple as your weapon (at least for the first 2 of these if I'm missing a FAQ somewhere that disallows it for the other ones).



On that, I agree. If you perform an Attack action and are able to perform a grapple attempt during the same round (for example, if you possess the Grab special ability), the penalty should apply to that roll as well.

Nice to see we agree on some things. :P

[Malkavian_Andi]

You can choose Grapple as your weapon (at least for the first 2 of these if I'm missing a FAQ somewhere that disallows it for the other ones).Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation (and their Greater versions of course) explicitly call out grapple as being able to select as a weapon for the purpose of those feats. Improved Critical, Deadly Stroke, and Dazzling Display do not. Those feats do treat grapple as a weapon, but that doesn't make it a weapon in every other aspect. You can't score a critical hit with a grapple (or any other combat maneuver), you can't "wield" it (and swing it around for Dazzling Display), and it can't be disarmed or sundered.

[cmdisc]

I wasn't suggesting it was something you can disarm or sunder. Just that it is treated as a weapon with regards to attacking...meaning you attack with it, which was the point of my prior post.

As for Dazzling Display, have you never seen a Wrestling match? :)

[Malkavian_Andi]

I wasn't suggesting it was something you can disarm or sunder. Just that it is treated as a weapon with regards to attacking...meaning you attack with it, which was the point of my prior post.It is treated as a weapon for the purpose of taking Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization in order to gain a bonus on the grapple check or on the damage roll when maintaining the grapple, respectively. Nothing else treats it as a weapon unless it explicitly says so. It's not even listed on the weapons table in chapter 6 of the CRB, which unarmed strike is (although that's technically not a weapon).


As for Dazzling Display, have you never seen a Wrestling match?Wrestlers intimidate by showing their muscles, etc. That's unarmed strike. And of course, you can use Dazzling Display with unarmed strike.

[cmdisc]

Agreed on it not being similar to regular weapons. The point was Grappling a target means you are attacking that target. Hence various conditions apply; bonuses such as WF, penalties such as FD, breaking of effects that drop when you attack, etc.

And I don't usually see Wrestlers punch the air when they're intimidating opponents. More like flex their muscles, mimicking a headlock, and shows that involve clawing, chewing, or tearing your face off.

[M_A_G_O]

For me this issue is very clear. All combat maneouvers are attacks.

It is said along the rules several times, so, it's completely obvious that you can perfectly fight defensively with all of them. No more to say, and there is no reason to think in other way. The contrary is just making things more complex than they really are. Some rules are complex, not well definded, or maybe confusing. This is not the case.

[Trenloe]

For me this issue is very clear. All combat maneouvers are attacks.

It is said along the rules several times, so, it's completely obvious that you can perfectly fight defensively with all of them. No more to say, and there is no reason to think in other way. The contrary is try to mete things more complex than they really are. Some rules are complex, not well definded, or maybe confusing. This is not the case.
I love it when someone says "it's completely obvious" when it is obviously not completely obvious to everyone - otherwise this would not be a 4 page thread! (How many more obviouses can I fit in one sentence!) ;)

I'm glad it's so clear to you - but you may not have taken in some of the detailed quotes from the Pathfinder Core Rulebook referenced above that clearly show that for certain combat maneuvers (grapple and overrun in particular) they are not treated as "in place of an attack" and so some of us are arguing that they cannot be combined with the "fighting defensively as a standard action" action.

As it is so clear to you, that is how you can run it in your games. However, if you are playing in a Pathfinder Society game (which is the forum where this thread is and what we are primarily discussing about) don't be surprised to get a ruling either way from the GM - and please don't argue if you do, obviously! :)

[M_A_G_O]

Well, i am sorry if it sounded bad, but i can´t help to think that is very clear. I broadly recognize that rules could be ambiguous sometimes, but for me this is not one of those times.

Let´s analyze the rules:

"Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next turn."

First; fighting defensively AS a standard action, is not an action, is a different way to make standard attack actions, more defensively, so ALL standard attack actions are included here.

"Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it. When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target’s Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."

So, we have here, written several times, that combat maneuvers are attacks, are a different kind of attack, you sunder a weapon or trip a guy, but are attacks. When you make an attack, with a standard action, you can make it defensively, and when it says you make an attack, it´s no written anywhere, at all, that it must be an attack with your sword or axe, is just an attack, in general, so, all kind of standard attacks are, for me, obviusly included in this category. As i formerly said, thinking in a different way is possible, because it is no said specifically in any place that you can do that, but, for me, is taking it too literally.

At least this is the way i see it.

[Malkavian_Andi]

So, we have here, written several times, that combat maneuvers are attacks,No, everything you bolded says that combat maneuvers use attack rolls, but as I already mentioned earlier, this doesn't make them an attack.


is a different way to make standard attack actionsIt's a different way to make the Attack action, which is the standard action named "Attack", not any standard action that results in an attack roll. Note that it is listed as an option for that action, not for standard actions in general.

[M_A_G_O]

Well, everybody is free to think in their way.

Combat maneouvers are attacks. Yes, the are not the "standard attack action", they are a different, and special kind of attacks, with it's won't rules. THIS is why in a different part of the chapter, but they still are attacks.

Ok, an attack roll, maybe could not make an action an attack, but neither an attack roll make san action not to be an attack. I mean, ok, it isn't said that combat maneouvers are attacks, for me this is something implicit, but it isn't said (for sure cause is pretty obvious). But, in the God's name, what could be the reason for thinking they aren't attacks?

It is said that EVERYTHING that modifies your attack, also modifies you combat maneouver, be it surprise, flank, combat defensively or whatever...

I let you this https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r7h1?Defensive-Grappling#1

Most of the people there thinks in the same way, except one or two. Maybe you can get more reasons here

[Trenloe]

I mean, ok, it isn't said that combat maneouvers are attacks, for me this is something implicit, but it isn't said (for sure cause is pretty obvious).
Does this mean you can grapple as an attack of opportunity?

[Syndrome]

no but i think thats why the disarm and stuff specially state can be used in place of a melee attack... so its known they can be used as a aoo or as part of a full attack action

[Trenloe]

no but i think thats why the disarm and stuff specially state can be used in place of a melee attack... so its known they can be used as a aoo or as part of a full attack action
Yeah, we know - I was more asking M_A_G_O to see what their specific interpretation of that was. It was a leading question, as he(?) was saying it was "implicit" and "pretty obvious", which it not necessarily is...

[Malkavian_Andi]

I let you this https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r7h1?Defensive-Grappling#1

Most of the people there thinks in the same way, except one or two. Maybe you can get more reasons here.FYI, that thread was created by cmdisc to get some opinions on the paizo board. Seems like most of those users just read the reasons he lists there and, based on that, agree. Well, assuming all that was clearly supported by the rules, I probably would agree, too. But as I mentioned here (and there as well), the rules say otherwise. It's just details in some cases, but those details make a difference.

[cmdisc]

When I saw Trenloe's original response to the question posted here, I didn't find the answer sitting right in my mind. So I looked through the resources I had and posted my thoughts. That generated a back and forth on here, so I looked to the Rules section on the Paizo site. My search turned up nothing with regards to a discussion on this topic, so I posted my argument to see what the response would be. Usually if a topic is a source of debate, people of both sides hop on it pretty quickly. There didn't seem to be much of a response other than "of course you can do it that way"...something I took to mean that grappling defensively was a widely accepted thing by the PF community. So after some responses came in, I reported the results here. Shortly after that M-A (I can only assume) started responding on that post with a counter view. Other than him and 1 other that agreed with him, there has not been much of a debate going on there since last I checked.

I agree that it may not be as obvious an issue as people would hope. One side argues that Grappling counts as an attack in many ways (the roll it makes, the fact that it breaks effects that attacks break, etc). Another side argues that FD is only limited to the Attack Action (only those that can be performed as an AoO for example) because that is the section it resides in.

Sounds like a GM call to me unless the Devs speak up to resolve the issue one way or the other. In the meantime, some advice:

Don't build your character around Grappling Defensively as he/she may not be able to do so at every table you visit.
Before accepting/denying the concept of Grappling Defensively as a GM, honestly consider if it is really that much of a game breaker. If you really think it is, then consider denying it. If not, then consider letting it ride.

[M_A_G_O]

Well, it´s a bit difficult for me explaining myself about so complicated an detailed things, in a langauge i don´t master (cause I´m spanish), but i´ll do my best, again.

The combat section is divided in several parts, and generally talking it goes from the general to the specific, moreover in the thread we´re treating. In standard actions it talks about ATTACKS in general, and MELEE ATTACKS in particular, and there it says that it must be done with a melee weapon, etc.

In AoO, it says that they must be done with a Melee Attack, with all that it implies.

Then we go to the section where grapple is; SPECIAL ATTACKS, and it talks the first about "the various standard maneuvers yo can perform during combat other than normal attacks......Some of this special attacks can be made as part of another action (such as an attack) or as an attack of opportunity."

For me, this, linked to everything i´ve already told, sets clear that you can grapple defensively.

You cannot make a grapple as an AoO, cause it is specifically said that it´s a melee attack, which is a very specific kind of attack. But, due to an special attack must also be an attack, you can grapple defensively. Nevertheless, there are another special attacks that could be used as AoO, cause this is specifically said.

I don´t want to discuss anymore, cause i see no end to this tunnel. Whoever prefers to think in another way is, obviously, free to do it. But, as i´ve said, this time rules are very clear.

A grapple is a combat maneuver, combat maneuvers are attacks, and must follow all things concerning to attacks (this is said several times in the rules), in fact combat maneuvers are special attacks. And how the hell could be thought that a special attack is not an attack???!!!, yes it´s not a melee attack (specific), but is an attack (general) anyway.

Hope this could be used to someone, and brings some light

[Blackfoot]

This hardly seems worth all this discussion. Is there some game breaking move that can be accomplished by fighting defensively? I mean.. you take a -4 on your attack for a +2 AC.. (+3 with 3 ranks in Acrobatics) ... not exactly 'game breaking'... I'm not sure I see the point in arguing it either way. What does it do for you in this situation that would be awesome?

[Trenloe]

The difference where M_A and I are coming from is that grapple is a different action - it is a standard action specifically. You can't do 2 grapples if you have a BAB of 6+ (unless you have a feat/special ability that allows you to do so). We're not debating that it isn't classified as an attack pre-se and that attack modifiers etc. apply to it - we're debating if you can fight defensively (as a standard action) and do "As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe" - the other attack related CMB checks don't say "As a standard action" they say "You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack." (for example), they do not mention "Standard action" in the other attack related CMB checks.

That's where we're coming from, that's why we disagree - because it specifically calls grapple out as a standard action, not "as part of a melee attack".

We agree it is in general classed as an attack, but the disagreement is that it is not part of a normal attack action - it is a special case that needs a specific standard action. As noted above, without a special feat/ability you can't grapple more than once in a round - even if you have a BAB of 6+ that would allow you to make multiple "attack actions" - therefore I view that as telling me that you need a standard action separate (from the standard action to attack) and it isn't the same as a normal attack action. As such, in my view, the standard action of grappling can't be combined with another standard action (fighting defensively).

I understand both sides of the argument and see where people are coming from. I don't think it as game breaking (well, it might contribute to some monk builds being more game breaking, but that is another topic), I just don't see it as part of the RAW - in my opinion. If there is an official ruling from the Paizo developers then I'll take that whichever way it is, until then I'll keep doing what I do now...

[Skellan]

I came across this question before during my home game. I played it as you couldn't grapple defensively. Combat maneuvers are either melee attacks or standard actions. This fits with how you can flurry of blows with maneuvers that are made as part of a melee attack, but you need flurry of maneuvers for other combat maneuvers. Also, I would expect if someone was grappling defensively it would lower CMB and increase CMD rather than ATK and AC.
Anyway, as Trenloe said above, I will play it as you can't grapple defensively unless there's something official from paizo saying it should be otherwise. Please keep this in mind if you play in one of my sessions. (sorry Dante! )

[Bidmaron]

I agree it's not clear, but let's consider the basic question: can you grapple in a defensive manner? It seems reasonable that you can. Consider roman wrestling. If you know you are up on points, you might wrestle (grapple) defensively so as not to lose any further points, recognizing you are not likely to make any more yourself. This fits with my recollection of wrestling in high school. I agree that the rules as written leave some doubt, but I'd go with the defensive grappling concept because it just makes sense. No set of rules are ever going to be perfect, and they are easier to judge correctly if they make sense. While I agree in a court of law you'd probably come down on the can't grapple defensively decision, I think it just doesn't make sense and would argue it is a rules error.

[Trenloe]

We're not discussing correct/realistic rules here - for that please take it to the Paizo forums. This is specifically in the Pathfinder Society (PFS) forum and so for PFS games you should use the rules as written - no GM house rules in order to give as similar experience as possible with different GMs.

[Syndrome]

lol im not really that worried about it... its kinda funny how many pages this has consumed now :P

[Trenloe]

its kinda funny how many pages this has consumed now :P
Yeah, it dies down for a while but then someone fans the flames... :/

[Skellan]

lol sorry! I just didn't want people arguing the toss at the table

[Trenloe]

lol sorry! I just didn't want people arguing the toss at the table
You're not the only one... ;-)

[cmdisc]

Surprising that this went 5 pages so far for being such a rare thing. But at the risk of extending it further, does the table call change any when considering the Maneuver Master's Flurry of Maneuvers ability?

For reference: "At 1st level, as part of a full-attack action, a maneuver master can make one additional combat maneuver, regardless of whether the maneuver normally replaces a melee attack or requires a standard action. The maneuver master uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus to determine his CMB for the bonus maneuvers, though all combat maneuver checks suffer a –2 penalty when using a flurry."

[Trenloe]

Surprising that this went 5 pages so far for being such a rare thing. But at the risk of extending it further, does the table call change any when considering the Maneuver Master's Flurry of Maneuvers ability?

For reference: "At 1st level, as part of a full-attack action, a maneuver master can make one additional combat maneuver, regardless of whether the maneuver normally replaces a melee attack or requires a standard action. The maneuver master uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus to determine his CMB for the bonus maneuvers, though all combat maneuver checks suffer a –2 penalty when using a flurry."
Yes, because the above reference says that this is "as part of a full-attack action" and you can: "Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action." and because this feat says "regardless of whether the maneuver normally replaces a melee attack or requires a standard action" which covers grapples and overruns.

[Skellan]

I can't argue with the logic so its ok. I do think this is just a loophole though. Flurry is supposed to be so that you can flurry with maneuvers that don't replace melee attacks. As its PFS I can't say no.

[Malkavian_Andi]

I agree with Trenloe. Because the ability clearly says it's a full-attack action, you can fight defensively on it, regardless of the maneuvers you choose.

[Skellan]

Aww can't someone disagree, I was hoping we would make 7 pages hehe

[Trenloe]

Aww can't someone disagree, I was hoping we would make 7 pages hehe
Nooooooooooooooo, stop it!

;)

[cmdisc]

We can try...

[cmdisc]

...one post...

[cmdisc]

...at a time. :p

[xazil]

I wonder when this thread will become top result when you google "pathfinder grapple" :)

[Syndrome]

well the use i took for flurry of maneuvers is i could do a disarm before i attempted to grapple with a -2 to both... but thats a good thought of doing it defensively